My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-10-11_REVISION - M1981185
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981185
>
2011-10-11_REVISION - M1981185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:58:22 PM
Creation date
10/12/2011 9:21:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981185
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
10/11/2011
Doc Name
Response to 6th adequacy letter to CN-01
From
GreenbergTraurig for Wildcat Mining Corporation
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
CN1
Email Name
WHE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Wallace H. Erickson <br />Response to September 28, 2011 Cazier Memorandum <br />October 11, 2011 <br />Page 5 <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 6.c. <br />Wildcat will perform a stability analysis to demonstrate the existing embankment <br />is stable, or to develop a design for a new stable embankment. See supra Response to <br />Adequacy Issue No. 5. Wildcat will submit stability data and any revised design for <br />DRMS approval through the Technical Revision or Amendment process. Id. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 7. <br />a. The applicant appears to use the engineering terms "stability" and "capacity" <br />interchangeably. These terms have different meanings: Capacity should be used <br />when referring to load capacity and abutment bearing capacity. Stability should be <br />used when referring to abutment susceptibility to scour and /or erosion, and the <br />bridge's torsional stability. <br />b. The first two bullets in this response are redundant. The first bullet should be <br />deleted in favor of the second, as it is more detailed. <br />c. The Applicant has proposed to resolve this adequacy issue in a follow -up Technical <br />Revision (TR) or Amendment (AM), to be submitted subsequent to the approval and <br />issuance of CN -01. All but the first of the 11 bulleted responses to this adequacy <br />issue presented in the subject response letter shall be included in the revised <br />Geotechnical Stability Exhibit (see Adequacy Issue comment 7b). <br />d. The last line of the response to this adequacy issue references a new Attachment <br />6.5.6, as Attachment 6. The new Attachment 6.5.6 consists of two copies (one, <br />half size) of a one -page letter from William C. Birza, P.E., dated November 8, <br />2006; and an unlabeled sketch of what appears to be a bridge cross - section. The <br />letter only offers Mr. Birza's opinion, no analyses. The sketch is not referenced <br />in the letter. Without labels and dimensions, the sketch is not useful. DRMS has <br />not completed an assessment of the bridge submittal. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 7. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 7.a. <br />Wildcat will revise the bulleted portion of its Response to Adequacy Issue No. 7, <br />August 19, 2011 Cazier Memorandum, as follows to properly refer to capacity: <br />• The bridge is currently 36 feet long, 11 feet wide with four 12 "x12" beams. <br />(Attachment 6.5.6). The bridge supports are approximately 33 feet on center. <br />(Attachment 6.5.6). The bridge is capable of supporting an AASHTO truck <br />loading type H15 -44 which is 6,000 pounds on the front axle and 24,000 <br />pounds on the rear axle spaced 14 feet on center. (Attachment 6.5.6). <br />DEN 97,629,168v1 10 -11 -11 <br />GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ® ATTORNEYS AT LAW ® WWW.GTLAW.COM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.